<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for mnr</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/5c8ee744be29d189e9cdb130dffbd0b0/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:27:10 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Keloathing</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/keloathing/#comment-3709314</link><description>I think most people are idignant about government: that's to say, they are indignant that government would turn over land to private developers.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1. Most people recognize some public uses.  I don't, but most people do, and I can understand why they do think gov't should have the power to use land to build streets, bridges, etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;2. Most people intuitively understand that if you open up the range of takings possibilities, more people will line up at the trough, so to speak. It's a matter of institutional rules. Even if there is no moral difference between government using force to take land to build a school and government using force to take land to give to a developer to build a private school, once you open up the rule, all bets are off in the real world.  Moral philosophy can help you in some respects, but it's a starting point, not a stopping point, when pausing to consider what real-world rules are in order.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mnr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:27:10 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>